Julius Caesar's Age

[Primus Pilus]

This is both getting back to original topic and taking it on an entirely new tangent. I have been under the impression that post Sulla, the legal age of the consulship was 42 regardless of Patrician or Plebeian origin. In my narration on Caesar I wrote the following passage...

 

Of interesting note regarding the election is Caesar's age. The constitution, under normal circumstances, required a Consular candidate to be 42 years of age. Caesar, however, according to common beliefs, being born in 100 BC, was only 40 years old. This has led to much speculation that he was actually born in 102 BC to make him the right age for the office. The fact that the 'boni' and their ultra conservative policies make little argument against the legality of Caesar running for Consul, lends credence to the argument that Caesar was actually born 2 years earlier. In fact, each office Caesar held was exactly 2 years prior to being legally eligible. However, circumstances throughout this imperatorial period of the Republic often negated such rules. Pompey served as consul in his 20's without even having been a Senator first. Both Plutarch and Suetonius, ancient Rome's great biographers, both say that Caesar died during his 56th year. He would have turned 56 in July of 44 BC making it seem quite clear that Caesar was indeed born in 100 BC. Some theories have suggested that his age may have been overlooked because Caesar won the corona civica in his youth while on campaign in the east. Regardless, no special legislation or extenuating circumstances seemed to block Caesar's legal position to run for Consul.

 

Does it hold water or have I written this under the mistaken assumption that the legal age for the consulship was 42, when actually it was only 40 for a Patrician. Clearly the law regarding issues such as this in the era of Sulla/Marius/Cinna and beyond was much more open to instantaneous change and interpretation than in prior eras, but considering the nature of Caesar's politics there likely would have been a record of opposition on this issue from his rivals.

 

Perhaps I am incorrect in assuming the required age of a consul was 42 and that this is not the reason some people believe he was born in 102 BC. Perhaps it is some other magistracy age requirement that has helped to develop this concept. However, clearly I believe he was born in 100 BC as reported by Plutarch and Suetonius.

[phil25]

I'm no expert on Caesar, but I think Colleen McCullough (who does sound research) argues that he was given a dispensation to stand for office two years earlier because of the military award he won at Mytilene. Is that her imaginative alternative explanation to the mystery, or is it based on fact?

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

I'm no expert on Caesar, but I think Colleen McCullough (who does sound research) argues that he was given a dispensation to stand for office two years earlier because of the military award he won at Mytilene. Is that her imaginative alternative explanation to the mystery, or is it based on fact?

 

Phil

 

I also made passing reference to the theory in my own text, however there seems to be no ancient source material to corroborate this claim. That's why I attempted to be rather dismissive of it. (hard to know if that comes through or not)

[M. Porcius Cato]

Any idea where Plutarch or Suetonius got their information on Caesar's birthday? Did they deduce his birthdate from his age at assassination, or was his birth reported in some source as occurring during the consulships of so-and-so and they depended on a list of consuls to determine the year of birth?

[Primus Pilus]

Any idea where Plutarch or Suetonius got their information on Caesar's birthday? Did they deduce his birthdate from his age at assassination, or was his birth reported in some source as occurring during the consulships of so-and-so and they depended on a list of consuls to determine the year of birth?

 

This is all that Plutarch says..

At the time of his death Caesar was fully fifty-six years old, but he had survived Pompey not much more than four years, while of the power and dominion which he had sought all his life at so great risks, and barely achieved at last, of this he had reaped no fruit but the name of it only, and a glory which had awakened envy on the part of his fellow citizens...

 

and I'm afraid I would not be able to translate the original Greek in case something is missing or mistranslated.

 

Evidence from Suetonius:

In the course of his sixteenth year1 he lost his father.

of which Bill Thayer on his Lacus Curtius site says:

85/84 B.C., according to the chronology of Suetonius, which makes the year of Caesar's birth 100 B.C. The arguments in favour of 102 are however very strong.

 

Unfortunately he doesn't provide the arguments.

 

Also from Suetonius who may have simply been quoting Plutach by the looks of it.

He died in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was numbered among the gods, not only by a formal decree, but also in the conviction of the common people.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Perhaps I am incorrect in assuming the required age of a consul was 42

 

The lex Vibia annalis (180) set down that one had to be 43 to hold the consulship. Perhaps one had to be at least 42 to establish one's candidacy?

[Primus Pilus]

Perhaps I am incorrect in assuming the required age of a consul was 42

 

The lex Vibia annalis (180) set down that one had to be 43 to hold the consulship. Perhaps one had to be at least 42 to establish one's candidacy?

 

Makes sense to me, though to overlook such a requirement does not exactly fall in line with other strict guidelines regarding election law... such as absentia laws and prerequisite magistracy requirements (though there were loopholes in everything). I believe it was Sulla's reforms that introduced the age of 40 for a Patrician consular candidate and 42 for a Plebe, but as most of his laws were eventually overturned I'm sure this did not apply in Caesar's case. Do we know for sure if the lex Vibia annalis was restored after Sulla or was something else adopted.

 

Of course as you often point out, there was a great deal of questionable legality surrounding the time period.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I believe it was Sulla's reforms that introduced the age of 40 for a Patrician consular candidate and 42 for a Plebe, but as most of his laws were eventually overturned I'm sure this did not apply in Caesar's case. Do we know for sure if the lex Vibia annalis was restored after Sulla or was something else adopted.

Are you sure Sulla overturned the entire lex Vibia annalis?

 

Of course as you often point out, there was a great deal of questionable legality surrounding the time period.

That's an understatement!

 

Let's review Caesar's career to see where it does and doesn't jibe with the law.

 

In 69/68, Caesar was elected quaestor (under Sulla, min. age = 30 for plebs, 28 for patricians). If patrician Caesar were born in 100, he would have been 31/32 when elected. So, he's fine here, and actually a bit of a late bloomer.

 

In 66, Caesar and Bibulus were elected as aediles (min. age = 37) by the comitia tributa. If Caesar were born in 100, he'd be only 34, and even if Caesar were born in 102, he'd still be too young. How the heck did that happen??? Even if we grant that he would not take office until Jan 65, he'd again be too young--and even with the earlier birth date. All I can guess is that Crassus intervened somehow. According to numerous sources (Dio, Suetonius, Cicero, Geminus, and Curio), Caesar was already in a conspiracy with Crassus to profit from a coup d'etat led by the deposed consuls of that year (Sulla and Paetus), so it's possible that Crassus was able to weasel Caesar in. The senate did appear to take notice. In that year, Catulus remarked, "No longer with mines, but with battering-rams and catapults and ballists is Caesar grasping the government."

 

In 63, Caesar was elected (for life) as pontifex maximus by the comitia tributa. I don't think there was an age requirement for this office, so again I think Caesar is kosher here.

 

In 62, Caesar was elected praetor (min. age = 40, lex Vibia) by the comitia centuriata. If Caesar were born in 100, he would not have been 40 until 60. So, his election would have been illegal by the lex Vibia. Perhaps, Sulla also allowed patricians to take the office at 38?

 

Otherwise, all I can guess is that this illegality was accomplished somehow by Pompey, which would explain two favors Caesar performed for Pompey. First, Caesar's first act as praetor was to propose that Catulus be removed as the Capitoline curator in favor of Pompey, whose name would then appear on the new temple of the Capitoline Father of Light (Dio, 37, 44). Second, Caesar supported a bill put forward by Pompey's creature Caecilius Metellus, which would have recalled Pompey to deal with Catiline.

 

It's not clear that either of these overtures turned out well for Caesar. The more dangerous measure proposed by Metellus (which could have turned Pompey into a Sulla) was blocked by a young Cato, at some risk to his own life (Plut., Cato Min, 27). Caesar also appears to have withdrawn his bill to humiliate Catulus. Finally, the senate passed a resolution forbidding Caesar and Metellus from exercising their magistracies for the time being. Again, this resolution might have been passed more smoothly if we accept the assumption that Caesar was too young to legally hold the post of praetor.

 

In 60, Caesar was elected consul (min. age = 43, lex Vibia) by the comitia centuriata. Again, Caesar would have been too young. His election, of course, was opposed on legal grounds (by Cato, whom Caesar must have really hated by now!), but only that Caesar had to enter the city as a private citizen to stand for election. According to Dio, the triumviral pact preceded this election, which would make sense if we assume that Caesar managed to hold nearly all his offices through the intervention of Crassus and Pompey anyway.

 

So, a couple of points emerge. First, whether Caesar were born in 100 or 102, there are still some illegal elections to explain. Second, Caesar had powerful patrons that could have helped him all along, and this patronage is very much in keeping with the triumvirate that eventually followed. Third, although Caesar was opposed vigorously as early as he held his aedileship, it's not clear that he was ever opposed on grounds of his age. Of course, a vacuum of evidence is not evidence of a vacuum, so it's possible that he WAS opposed on grounds of his age and that some compromise with his patrons prevailed. If this interpretation is correct, the road to triumvirate was paved with compromise.

[Primus Pilus]

Are you sure Sulla overturned the entire lex Vibia annalis?

 

No, I didn't mean to suggest that he overturned it, but that he modified it. I guess a good question would be whether or not the law remained in effect with the same name, but with new definition.

 

Of course as you often point out, there was a great deal of questionable legality surrounding the time period.

That's an understatement!

 

LOL, that there was questionable legality or that you point it out often? Ok friendly ribbing aside...

 

In 66, Caesar and Bibulus were elected as aediles (min. age = 37) by the comitia tributa. If Caesar were born in 100, he'd be only 34, and even if Caesar were born in 102, he'd still be too young. How the heck did that happen??? Even if we grant that he would not take office until Jan 65, he'd again be too young--and even with the earlier birth date.

 

37 (or 36 at time of candidacy) is the lex villia age though I believe and not the Sullan. Considering that Sulla lowered the patrician age for everything else by two years it would make sense that he lowered it to 35/34 for Aediles as well. In this case Caesar was right on track according to the Sullan laws.

 

All I can guess is that Crassus intervened somehow. According to numerous sources (Dio, Suetonius, Cicero, Geminus, and Curio), Caesar was already in a conspiracy with Crassus to profit from a coup d'etat led by the deposed consuls of that year (Sulla and Paetus), so it's possible that Crassus was able to weasel Caesar in. The senate did appear to take notice. In that year, Catulus remarked, "No longer with mines, but with battering-rams and catapults and ballists is Caesar grasping the government."

 

I suppose that's a possibility, but I'm sure that Catulus' remark has more to do with policy making than with Caesar's age and forced magistracy, but it's interesting looking at it within this context.

 

So, his election would have been illegal by the lex Vibia. Perhaps, Sulla also allowed patricians to take the office at 38?

 

Yes, but I have been operating under the assumption for some time that this particular portion of Sulla's reforms had been overturned some time previously, hmm... I'll add some more conjecture below.

 

Otherwise, all I can guess is that this illegality was accomplished somehow by Pompey, which would explain two favors Caesar performed for Pompey. First, Caesar's first act as praetor was to propose that Catulus be removed as the Capitoline curator in favor of Pompey, whose name would then appear on the new temple of the Capitoline Father of Light (Dio, 37, 44). Second, Caesar supported a bill put forward by Pompey's creature Caecilius Metellus, which would have recalled Pompey to deal with Catiline.

 

It's not clear that either of these overtures turned out well for Caesar. The more dangerous measure proposed by Metellus (which could have turned Pompey into a Sulla) was blocked by a young Cato, at some risk to his own life (Plut., Cato Min, 27). Caesar also appears to have withdrawn his bill to humiliate Catulus. Finally, the senate passed a resolution forbidding Caesar and Metellus from exercising their magistracies for the time being. Again, this resolution might have been passed more smoothly if we accept the assumption that Caesar was too young to legally hold the post of praetor.

 

Now this is a damned fine theory in trying to piece together some possibilities based on information that has not been preserved with the idea of giving us the answers we are looking for in this context. However, the key thing for me is that I can't reason why if Caesar was indeed too young that somewhere this would not have been recorded, especially when we consider the fairly large amount of data that has been preserved.

 

In 60, Caesar was elected consul (min. age = 43, lex Vibia) by the comitia centuriata. Again, Caesar would have been too young. His election, of course, was opposed on legal grounds (by Cato, whom Caesar must have really hated by now!), but only that Caesar had to enter the city as a private citizen to stand for election. According to Dio, the triumviral pact preceded this election, which would make sense if we assume that Caesar managed to hold nearly all his offices through the intervention of Crassus and Pompey anyway.

 

Agreed, and despite the enmity growing for Caesar among certain members of the Senate, I think its safe to say that we all agree that he was still considered the junior member of the partnership at this point. Pompey and his legions, and not Caesar, despite the guilt by association concept, were still the major worry. It's possible that anything could have been overlooked in order to make appeasing gestures on more practical concerns, but why would Pompey's enemies allow Caesar to take office at two years under the required age (as a conciliatory gesture with Pompey) if they were not necessarily aware of Caesar's total connection to Pompey at this point (and therefore the likelihood that Caesar's election would cause them trouble). Granting this concession prior to the announced triumvirate doesn't quite tie together, especially if there was any notion at all that Caesar might support Pompey. Allowing Caesar to become Consul by circumventing the age laws, if there was concern that he would support Pompey, doesn't make sense unless Pompey's opponents were hoping to influence Caesar away from supporting Pompey and his legions by making a concession. That would seem a bit naive of his opponents though and considering their political acumen, I certainly doubt it.

 

So, a couple of points emerge. First, whether Caesar were born in 100 or 102, there are still some illegal elections to explain.

 

I think the illegal aedile election based on both 100 and 102 BC is solved if we can assume that the Sullan laws were still in effect. Whether or not this was overturned is still in question though I suppose. However, considering that each of Caesar's offices were held 2 years prior to legal age according to the Lex Villia (if he were in fact born in 100 BC), there is a fairly clear pattern developing which indicates that the Sullan laws were still active. Considering how few Patricians were still around in this period, maybe it is not quite so extraordinary that the old Villia law gets cited most often when in fact the Patrician adjustments of Sulla were still in effect. Since the Consulship age of 42/43 for other families was the typical and by far most common measuring stick for the time perhaps it is simply an error in made by the ancients on account of what was the norm. We know that Cicero makes reference to the ages in the Villia Annalis clearly after the time of Sulla, rather than anything left over from those reforms, but Cicero was also not a patrician and was perhaps making an oversight.

 

Since the primary factor that records Caesar's year of birth as 100 BC are the recorded words of Plutarch, there is certainly the possibility that Plutarch was just wrong. Is it possible that the change in the calendar adopted by Caesar created some confusion? Or, did Plutarch simply backtrack Caesar's date of birth by calculating it based on his magistracies? If this was the case the chance of mistakingly using the Sullan laws rather than the Lex Villia doesn't seem all that shocking.

 

And I apologize to anyone that doesn't find this interesting, but its fairly intriguing to me. Though I suppose nobody forces anyone to read it.

[Primus Pilus]

Just to add some lighthearted fodder for silliness factor...

 

Plutarch, in addition to labelling Caesar as having died in his 56th year quotes Caesar thusly...

 

"Do you think I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable."

 

This was supposedly said while Caesar was serving as Quaestor in Hispania for the year 68 BC (following election in 69). If Caesar had been born in 100 BC and this occured after July (his birth month, and consider that Caesar's departure to his province had been delayed by his aunt's and wife's funerals) he would've been 32 years old... but technically entered into his 33rd year And of course, Alexander was 33 when he died. LOL.

 

Sorry, but it struck me funny picturing Plutarch basing Caesar's age on this bit of literary drama.

[Furius Venator]

Goldsworthy prefers 100 to 102.

 

He seems to think there is no definite evidence for the year of Caesar's quaestorship. He thinks it most likely that he was elected to office in 70 when he was 30.

 

 

He became aedile in 65, so would have been 35 if born in 100. Goldsworthy rejects any notion of collusion with Pompey at this stage. He further says that Caesar was granted a likely granted a two year dispensation but that such dispensations 'seem to have been reasonably common, so much so that in 67 a tribune has passed a law barring the senate from granting such dispensations unless a quorum of 200 senators were present.'

 

Basically, if we assume that Caesar recieved a two year dispensation for every office beyond quaestor then 100 fits. It is not illegal if he has gained either senatorial dispensation or there was a general dispensation for patricians. Otherwise we must assume that he failed the (relatively easy) task of becoming quaestor in his year but then managed to gain every other office in 'his year'.

[Primus Pilus]

Goldsworthy prefers 100 to 102.

 

He seems to think there is no definite evidence for the year of Caesar's quaestorship. He thinks it most likely that he was elected to office in 70 when he was 30.

 

 

He became aedile in 65, so would have been 35 if born in 100. Goldsworthy rejects any notion of collusion with Pompey at this stage. He further says that Caesar was granted a likely granted a two year dispensation but that such dispensations 'seem to have been reasonably common, so much so that in 67 a tribune has passed a law barring the senate from granting such dispensations unless a quorum of 200 senators were present.'

 

Basically, if we assume that Caesar recieved a two year dispensation for every office beyond quaestor then 100 fits. It is not illegal if he has gained either senatorial dispensation or there was a general dispensation for patricians. Otherwise we must assume that he failed the (relatively easy) task of becoming quaestor in his year but then managed to gain every other office in 'his year'.

 

And this is where the theory that the dispensation from having won the corona civica can also be easily applied.

[M. Porcius Cato]

At the risk of being completely ridiculous, let me follow up about the aedileship. I got my minimum age from the lex Vibia annalis (reported here). However, according to the Smith dictionary:

It appears that until the lex annalis was passed, a Roman citizen might be a candidate for any office after completing his twenty-seventh year. This lex annalis, which was passed at the instance of the tribune L. Villius Tappulus, B.C. 180, fixed the age at which each office might be enjoyed (Liv. xl.44). The passage of Livy does not mention what were the ages fixed by this law; but it is collected from various passages of Roman writers, that the age fixed for the aedileship was thirty-six. This, at least, was the age at which a man could be a candidate for the curule aedileship, and it does not appear that there was a different rule for the plebeian aedileship. In Cicero's time, the aediles were elected some time in July, the usual place of election was the Field of Mars (Campus Martius), and the presiding magistrate was a consul.

 

If the age were 36 AND if Caesar were born in 100, Caesar was too young (34) in July 66. Unfortunately, the Smith dictionary isn't clear about whether the age "collected from various passages of Roman writers" corresponds to the age requirement after Sulla or not. On the other hand, if the age were 36 AND if Caesar were born in 102, he would have just turned 36, and thus be fine. So, we needn't assume that Sulla lowered the ages of everything by two years to save the legality of Caesar's aedileship if we instead assume that Caesar was born in 102.

 

I suppose that's a possibility, but I'm sure that Catulus' remark has more to do with policy making than with Caesar's age and forced magistracy, but it's interesting looking at it within this context.

Well, aedlies don't make much policy, but you're right that Catulus' remark wasn't about Caesar's age. Catulus was fuming that Caesar had placed gilded statues of Marius in the forum, which drew a surprsing and worrisome number of Marian veterans together.

 

On the legality of Caesar's praetorship:

the key thing for me is that I can't reason why if Caesar was indeed too young that somewhere this would not have been recorded, especially when we consider the fairly large amount of data that has been preserved.

But look at how much we don't know about Caesar's praetorship! For example, what was the court where he was praetor??? Presumably if Caesar DID anything as praetor, they would have to mention something that would allow us to figure out which court he served on.

 

Agreed, and despite the enmity growing for Caesar among certain members of the Senate, I think its safe to say that we all agree that he was still considered the junior member of the partnership at this point.

Absolutely.

 

It's possible that anything could have been overlooked in order to make appeasing gestures on more practical concerns, but why would Pompey's enemies allow Caesar to take office at two years under the required age (as a conciliatory gesture with Pompey) if they were not necessarily aware of Caesar's total connection to Pompey at this point (and therefore the likelihood that Caesar's election would cause them trouble).

Well, that's one reason I like my story about the connection between Crassus and Caesar going back to Caesar's aedileship. It may be that the opposition to Pompey already knew of this connection (Cicero certainly did), and they counted on Caesar playing Crassus against Pompey to attain Caesar's own ends and to thereby hamstring Pompey on occasion. If so, that gambit backfired extraordinarily, but then that's the kind of Ciceronian screw-up that was par for the course.

 

Granting this concession prior to the announced triumvirate doesn't quite tie together, especially if there was any notion at all that Caesar might support Pompey. Allowing Caesar to become Consul by circumventing the age laws, if there was concern that he would support Pompey, doesn't make sense unless Pompey's opponents were hoping to influence Caesar away from supporting Pompey and his legions by making a concession. That would seem a bit naive of his opponents though and considering their political acumen, I certainly doubt it.

Yes, but if the idea weren't to draw Caesar from Pompey but to use Caesar's ambition (and alliance with Crassus) to weaken Pompey, they actually succeeded in their ambition (and to their downfall!).

 

 

I think the illegal aedile election based on both 100 and 102 BC is solved if we can assume that the Sullan laws were still in effect

Or that the age was really 36 and not 37 and that Caesar was born in 102.

 

We know that Cicero makes reference to the ages in the Villia Annalis clearly after the time of Sulla, rather than anything left over from those reforms, but Cicero was also not a patrician and was perhaps making an oversight.

An oversight about the law?? Not Cicero! He was the consummate stickler for details when it came to the law. I think the more reasonable hypothesis is that Plutarch is just wrong about Caesar's age.

 

Is it possible that the change in the calendar adopted by Caesar created some confusion? Or, did Plutarch simply backtrack Caesar's date of birth by calculating it based on his magistracies? If this was the case the chance of mistakingly using the Sullan laws rather than the Lex Villia doesn't seem all that shocking.

The Varronian calendar adopted by Caesar created all sorts of problems in dating, but they all concerned the dates of events that occurred in the 4th century, so I don't think we can blame Caesar's calendar for Plutarch's confusion. That is, since no intercalary magistracies were invented to occur between 102 and the time of Plutarch, there is no problem from this source.

 

And I apologize to anyone that doesn't find this interesting, but its fairly intriguing to me. Though I suppose nobody forces anyone to read it.

I don't know why, but I've found this simply fascinating. Maybe I'm just ensorcelled by even the whiff of a new charge to level against that darling of Venus...

 

 

He seems to think there is no definite evidence for the year of Caesar's quaestorship. He thinks it most likely that he was elected to office in 70 when he was 30.

Right. No one doubts that he was old enough for the quaestorship.

 

He became aedile in 65, so would have been 35 if born in 100. Goldsworthy rejects any notion of collusion with Pompey at this stage.

Yes, I agree. I was advancing the theory that it was collusion with Crassus, which is attested to by many sources (see above).

 

He further says that Caesar was granted a likely granted a two year dispensation but that such dispensations 'seem to have been reasonably common, so much so that in 67 a tribune has passed a law barring the senate from granting such dispensations unless a quorum of 200 senators were present.'

Well, that's interesting. It fits with my theory that the senate had reached some compromise with Caesar's patrons.

 

It is not illegal if he has gained either senatorial dispensation or there was a general dispensation for patricians.

Right.

[Primus Pilus]

So, we needn't assume that Sulla lowered the ages of everything by two years to save the legality of Caesar's aedileship if we instead assume that Caesar was born in 102.

 

Indeed, but I suppose I'm trying to tie this into the statements by Plutarch and Suetonius that Caesar died in his 56th year. We are fairly certain that the date surrounding Caesar's death is accuracte (44 BC) thanks to complete consul lists and such, so clearly its only the year of birth at issue. (Not that Cato is suggesting otherwise but I am simply expressing thoughts out loud)

 

But look at how much we don't know about Caesar's praetorship! For example, what was the court where he was praetor??? Presumably if Caesar DID anything as praetor, they would have to mention something that would allow us to figure out which court he served on.

 

Ok an understandle rebuttal. What if once a precedent was set, the matter was simply a non issue. If Caesar had already been allowed to run early has an aedile, perhaps each successive stage was granted dispensation as Furius suggests. Again just thoughts trying to tie together possibilities here.

 

Well, that's one reason I like my story about the connection between Crassus and Caesar going back to Caesar's aedileship. It may be that the opposition to Pompey already knew of this connection (Cicero certainly did), and they counted on Caesar playing Crassus against Pompey to attain Caesar's own ends and to thereby hamstring Pompey on occasion. If so, that gambit backfired extraordinarily, but then that's the kind of Ciceronian screw-up that was par for the course.

 

A politically viable option. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities considering Caesar's well known connection to Crassus. I can see a dispensation being granted on these grounds for the Consulship but does it really mesh going backwards to previous elections? Of course Crassus could've bought anyone off along with supplanting Caesar's debts to help him gain office, but it just seems like a more difficult explanation than the notion that either Sulla's laws were still in effect for Patricians or that some other dispensation had been granted.

 

I'll have to try to research some other names and dates to see how these wash together. Perhaps this special dispensation was common theory comes together if there are others with dubious dates of birth vs. magistrate eligibility, etc.

 

Yes, but if the idea weren't to draw Caesar from Pompey but to use Caesar's ambition (and alliance with Crassus) to weaken Pompey, they actually succeeded in their ambition (and to their downfall!).

 

Agreed as a definate possibility as per previous Crassus comments.

 

 

I think the illegal aedile election based on both 100 and 102 BC is solved if we can assume that the Sullan laws were still in effect

Or that the age was really 36 and not 37 and that Caesar was born in 102.

 

Understood, and it would tie things up nicely, but the Plutarch dating haunts me

 

I don't know why, but I've found this simply fascinating. Maybe I'm just ensorcelled by even the whiff of a new charge to level against that darling of Venus...

 

I don't care your motivation as long as it helps figure it out I skipped a bit as I am simply late getting out of my office but there will be more...

[Furius Venator]

Another point Goldsworthy makes is that when Caesar stood for consul it was in conjunction with the 'wealthy but uncharismatic Lucius Lucceius'. It is not necessary to assume that either Crassus or Pompey supported Caesar's bid to become consul. Although it is likely that Crassus and Caesar still had some kind of accord, the accomodation with Pompey seems to have been reached after Caesar was elected, not before. Indeed it seems unlikely that if Crassus was backing Caesar for consul that Pompety would to, given his dislike of Crassus.